3 ms·
Nice paper from 2013, but I was confused at first how it related to the blog. This paragraph just after the abstract explained, but I missed it the first time
by nkurz 11y ago
Nice paper from 2013, but I was confused at first how it related to the blog. This paragraph just after the abstract explained, but I missed it the first time through:
The original article in PDF[1] was published at the NCSU COE
People site. It was translated and published at our blog
by the authors' permission. At the end of the article[2], we
added a short section about the PVS-Studio analyzer, where
we describe which of the recommendations suggested in the
article are or aren't implemented in our tool and why.
[1] http://people.engr.ncsu.edu/ermurph3/papers/icse13b.pdf http://people.engr.ncsu.edu/ermurph3/papers/icse13b.pdf
[2] http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0335/#ID0EU4CK http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0335/#ID0EU4CK
- smarks 11y agoYes, I also found this quite confusing. The way this paper was attributed seems quite sloppy. It mentions previous publication at the "NCSU COE People site" and gives a link, but omits mention that this paper was originally presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013): http://2013.icse-conferences.org/index.html http://2013.icse-conferences.org/index.html These notes shouldn't have been tacked onto the abstract. Instead they should have been clearly separated from the paper itself. In addition, the PVS Studio team "added a short section" which appears as if it were a modification to the paper, and and it also appears in the augmented table of contents. If one is not reading carefully, or if the section heading has scrolled of the top of the screen, one might be misled into thinking the "added section" was also authored by Johnson et. al. instead of by the PVS Studio team. The "added short section" should also have been published entirely separately.